Sherles v SEIU Local 1000 Original Complaint

8/13/2019 Sherles v SEIU Local 1000 Original Complaint

1/22

789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

ChoudharyLaw OfficeNileshChoudhary, 219425Joel Rapaport, 2488471909CapitolAve.,Suite 100Sacramento, CA95811P: 916.526.2770F:916.400.3848e:jdrapaport(a),gmail.comAttorneysfor PlaintiffMechelleSherlesRobynSherles

FfLEDSuperiorCourtOfC aliforrSdcrgimento

B y _ DBpt |CasBNumbur:34 2011 00114741jSUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA

COUNTYOF SACRAMENTO

MECHELLESHERELES;andROBYNSHERELES,Plaintiff,

STATEEMPLOYEESINTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL1000; STATEEMPLOYEESINTERNAT IONAL UNION ; RICHBOYD,anindividual; MARIAPATTERSON,anindividual;and DOES1-100,inclusive,

Defendants.

CaseNo.Complaintfor Damages for:

1. Sexual Harassment (Gov.Code,12940,subd. G))2. Retaliation(Gov.Code,12940)' 3. Assault;4. Battery;5. IntentionalInfliction ofEmotionalDistress;6. Negligence;7. NegligentInflictionofEmotionalDistress*8. ViolationofLaborCode1102.5;9. ViolationofCivilCode51;10. V iolation ofC iv i lCode52.4;11.ViolationofCivilCode1708.5;12.Negligence Retention andSupervision;13. Violation ofC iv i lCode52.1;and14.Loss ofConsortium;and15.SexualOrientationHarassment (Gov.Code12940).AndRequest forJury Trial.

PlaintiffsMechelle Sherles, an individual, and Robyn Sherles, an individual, allege asfollows:

Parties

DepartmentAss ignments

Case Management44Law and Motion53

Minors Compromise45

Complaint


2/22

1 1. Mechelle Sherles ( Sherles ) is, and at all times was, a resident of the Stateof2 California,County of Sacramento.3 2. RobynSherles( Robyn Sherles ) is Registered Domestic Partner ( RDP ) toPlaintiff4 Mechelle Sherles, and at all times was, a resident of theStateofCalifornia,County of5 Riverside.6 3. DefendantStateEmployees InternationalUnionLOCAL1000 ( LOCAL1000 ) is, and7 atalltimes herein relevant was, a union organization,withitsprincipalplace ofbusiness8 in Sacramento,California.9 4. DefendantStateEmployees InternationalUnion( SEIU ) is an InternationalUnionof

10 whichDefendant LOCAL 1000 is a chapter. Thus, SEIU will be liable for claims11 contained hereinbasedonLOCAL 1000 acting as itsagentat all times material to this12 complaint.13 5. DefendantRichBoydis, and atalltimes herein mentioned was, a resident ofthe Stateof14 California,County of Sacramento.15 6. Defendant,MariaPatterson is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the16 StateofCalifornia,County of San Joaquin.17 7. Sherlesis ignorant of the truenamesand capacities of the Defendants sued herein as18 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, andeachofthem,and thereforesuestheseDefendants19 by suchfictitiousnames. Sherleswill seekleave of Court to amend this Complaint to20 allege their true namesand capacities when ascertained. Sherles is informed and21 believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is22 responsible insomemanner for the occurrences and eventsherein alleged and that23 Sherles'damagesas herein alleged wereproximatelycausedby suchactsand events.24 8. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, and25 employee of the other, andin'doingtheactshereinafter alleged was doing so withinthe26 scopeof their authority as suchagent,servant and employee and with the permission27 and consent ofeachother.28 I I .

Complaint


3/22

1 Facts2 7. The LOCAL 1000 is an employer subject to the Fair Employment and Housing Act3 ( FEHA ).4 8. Sherlesis employed by theStateofCaliforniaas an executiveassistant,in the role ofa5 filing officer,department'sliaison to the FairPoliticalpractices Commission and ethics6 compliance coordinator.7 9. At all times relevant to this complaint she was a member of the Local 1000 andfrom8 approximately September2009 toJune2011 she was a vice chair for bargaining unit9 ( BU )4.

10 10. As the vice chair for BU 4 of the LOCAL 1000,Sherles'duties were prescribed to her11 by theLOCALlOOO'spolicy file.Sherlesattended union meetings, general membership12 meetings, executive board meetings, council meetings, statewide bargaining advisory13 committee meetings, mixers, fundraisers and other specialevents.14 11. Whilevice chair for BU 4LOCAL 1000,Sherlesbecamethe object ofharassmentand15 discrimination by Bargaining Director, Defendant Rich Boyd ( Boyd ). This16 harassment beganon or aboutJuneof2010and continued through August of 2010.17 12. Boydwas hired by the LOCAL 1000, as Executive Bargaining Director, on or around18 April2009.19 13. Boydis subject to liabilityunder FEHA as an employee of the LOCAL 1000because20 Boydwas, ata lltimes relevant to the facts alleged in this complaint, anindividualunder21 the direction and control, and providingservicesfor the LOCAL 1000. He reported22 directly reported to Yvonne Walker, SEIU Local lOOO's president. Further, as the23 director of bargaining healsohadSEIUstaffand nine bargaining chairs that reported to24 him.He was given hotelsuitesand travelexpensespaidforbySEIU.25 14. Boydacteddirectlyas anagentof theLOCAL1000.26 15. On July 2, 2010,BoydcalledSherlesto his hotel bedroom suite under thepretenseof27 discussingUnionmatters, but instead he forced himself upon her on a couch and kissed28 her on the mouth. Sherlesimmediately stopped this, by pushingBoyd offof her,telling

Complaint


4/22

1 him no andrunningoutoftheroom.2 16. Followingthis hotel room incidentBoyd sentrepeated textmessagesto Sherles of a3 sexual nature regarding his genitals, propositioning her for sexual relations, and4 discussing other things ofasexual andintimatenature andstalkingher.5 17. Boydspecificallyused what he had learned about Sherles on Friday July 2, 2010, and6 toldher that he knew she was a diabetic and that he waswillingtopickher up at night i7 she ever wanted to see him,because he knew shecouldnot seewellat night .8 18. When Sherles refused his advances, Boyd began to dig more into Sherles'9 accommodations related to her diabetes. WhileSherles was one of three of the eight

10 bargaining members on theUnit4 team to receivereasonableaccommodations, Sherles11 was singled out and had herconfidentialmedical history questioned both byBoydand12 MargaritaMaldonado( Maldonado ),thenBUl'Schair andcurrentlyLocal lOOO'svice13 president ofbargainingMaldonado infrontof nineBUchairs and severalSEIUstaff.14 19. Sherles, apast victim of domestic violence, attempted to deal with Boyd's conduct15 internally,but by August shecouldnot take itanymore.16 20. On Friday August 6, 2010 Sherles sentBoyda textmessagestating that hisadvances17 were unwanted, unsolicited, and unprofessional, and that they needed tocease.Earlier18 Sherles was visibly upset and confided in Stacy Giacchino and showed her one of19 Boyd's sexually harassing textmessages. It is stated oninformationandbeliefthat20 Giacchino reported the conduct to theLOCAL1000.21 21. On or about August 9, 2010, Sherles was calledintoan alleged investigatory meeting22 withBrianSchroder, HumanResourcesDirector, of the LOCAL 1000 who wanted to23 talkto Sherles about Boyd's conduct. Sherles showed Schroder the texts to herfrom24 Boyd.Schroder referred toBoydas a sexual predatorbasedon his experience, and stated25 that Boyd's behavior was consistent with a sexual predator whousestheir power of26 authority overwomenthroughintimidation.27 22. On or about August 10,2011,YvonneWalker,LOCAL1000 president metwithSherles28 to discuss the harassing conduct ofBoyd. She referred toBoydas a predator and stated

Complaint


5/22

1 that she knew he had twophones,which was consistent with the way Sherles was2 receiving textmessagesfrom Boyd. Walker furtherstatedshe wasoverseeinga multi-3 milliondollar organization and it was her job to protect the organization. She madeno4 mention of protecting Sherles,a stateemployee and a member of the organization.5 Sherlesconfided to Walker that she hadbeenavictimofdomesticviolence in thepast6 and adesirenot to be in the spotlight was why she had notcomeforwardsooner.7 23. It isstatedon information and belief that Boyd, while conducting negotiations with the8 Stateof California,madeinappropriate and offensive and harassing comments at the9 bargaining table with Department ofPersonnel Administration (DPA). Walker and

10 Local 1000 knew Boyd had a propensity totreatwomen in alessermannerthan their11 malecounterparts.12 24. On oraboutAugust 13,Sherleswas interviewed byrepresentativesof the LOCAL100013 including their Paul Harris, chiefcounselandSchroder.14 25. It isstated on information and belief that this interview was not a part of agreater15 investigation into Boyd's conduct, but an opportunity to intimidate Sherles into not16 bringing acivilaction.17 26. Harris andSchroder,during anextensiveperiod oftimeduring the interviewengagedin18 a series of intimidating practices designed to thwart Sherles efforts to bring her19 complaints forward.20 27. Thereafter,over the courseof the next severalmonth Sherlesbegantoreceivefurther21 harassmentand retaliation by Local 1000leaders. Specifically, MariaPatterson began22 to verbally abuse, intimidate, and bully Sherles for coming forward and making a23 complaint ofsexualharassment.Patterson also discussedSherlessexualorientation and24 questionedher genderchoice inconversationswith Local 1000 leaders.It isstatedon25 information and belief that the Union questioned Sherles relationship with Robyn26 Sherles.27 28. Further, Patterson took a picture of Robyn Sherles Pride at Work form, which28 contained confidentialhomeaddressinformation, and forwarded this confidential form

Complaint


6/22

1 via her iphone. Walker wasnotifiedo fthisincident and the concern thatSherlesfeltfor2 herfamilies'privacy and safety due to heraddressbeing shared withotherindividuals.3 29. On another occasion, anagentofSEIU lefta document containingSherelespersonal4 addressinformationout and visible for publicviewingat theSEIU buildinglocated on5 ornear14 streetin Sacramento, CA.6 30. Sherlesand RobynSherlesare especially sensitive to their homeaddressinformation7 remainingconfidentialdue to RobynSherlesemploymentwithCDCR,whichplacesher8 in direct contactwithCaliforniaStateinmates, parolees, and crime offenders.9 31. On November 30, 2010, Sherles filedclaims of discrimination with the California

10 Department of Fair Employment and Housing ( DFEH ) against the LOCAL 1000,11 SEIU,andBoyd. Sherlesreceived Notices and Right-To-Sue fromthe DFEHdated12 December 2, 2010. Sherlesservedthesenotices viacertifiedmailon the relevant parties13 careofLocal1000.14 32. On November 17, 2011, Sherles filed Supplemental and Amended claims of15 discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing16 ( DFEH ) against the LOCAL 1000 andSEIU. She filed aclaim for discrimination17 with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing against Maria18 Patterson. Sherlesreceived Notices and Right-To-SuefromtheDFEHdated November19 23, 2011.Sherlesservedthesenotices viacertifiedmailon the relevant partiescareof20 Local1000. Thus,Sherleshas standing tobringthis action.2122 m.

L E G A L C L A I M S23

FirstCauseofAction24 Sexual Harassment in Violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision j)AgainstAllDefendants)26

33. Sherlesalleges as against allDefendants asfollowsand re-alleges and27

Incorporates by referenceparagraphs1 through 32ofthisComplaint.28

Complaint


7/22

1 34. Government Code section 12940, subdivisionG)(l)=makesitunlawfulfor an employer2 or any other person ...becauseof sex ... toharassan employee.... Furthermore,3 section 12904, subdivision ( j ) ( l ) , holds an employer responsible for the actsof4 nonemployees, withrespectto sexualharassmentof employees ... where the employer,5 or itsagentsor supervisors, knows or shouldhaveknown of the conduct andfailsto take6 immediate and appropriate corrective action.7 35. Boyd maintained amanagementpositionwhile acting in his role as an employee of8 LOCAL1000.9 36. It isstatedoninformationandbeliefthat LOCAL 1000 knew thatBoydwas a threat to

10 femalemembersofLOCAL1000.11 37. LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a Labor Organization under12 Government Code Section 12926(g).13 38. Boydengagedinthe actions setforthinthis Complaint,includingmaking inappropriate and14 harassingsexual comments toSherleswhilein private and in the company of others, and15 byforciblykissingSherles'lips and pushing against her in his hotel room imder the guise16 ofwantingtodiscuss businesswithher.17 39. Boydmadeseveral comments toSherlesessentiallyinformingher that he had the power and18 resourcesand could do whatever he wanted. HestatedSEIUneededhim more than he19 neededthem, and thatBoydhad the power to controlSherlesas wellas RobynSherles'20 union leave and to deny theirexpenseclaims,whichcould affect theirabilitytorepresent21 22,000 bargainingunit4and 4700 bargaming unit 15membersrespectively.22 40. WhenSherlescomplained to theLOCAL1000 about Boyd'sharassment,theLOCAL100023 retaliated against herformakingthe complaints.24 41. Boyd'sharassmentwas sosevereand pervasive as to affect the terms and conditions of25 Sherles'representation as a bargaining representative forher members.26 42. The LOCAL 1000engagedIn the actions set forthin this Complaint, including having27 knowledge thatBoydwas engaging Inharassingconduct, and failingto take appropriate28 and prompt remedial action.

7Complaint


8/22

1 43. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been2 damagedand has incurred attorneys' feesandcostsin an amount to be established at3 trial, and inexcessof the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable4 pursuantto GovemmentCodesection 12965, subdivision (b).5 44. TheactsofBoydand the LOCAL 1000 were willful ,wanton, malicious andoppressive6 andjustifyan award of exemplary and punitivedamagesin an amount to be established7 attrialand inexcessofthejurisdictional limitsofthis Court.8 45. Wherefore,SherlespraysforjudgmentagainstDefendants as more fiillyset forthbelow.9

111213141516171819202122232425262728

Second Cause of Action10 Retaliation in Violation of Government Codesection12940,subdivision h)Against theL O C AL 1000, S E I U andD O E S1-100)

46. Sherles allegesasagainstthe LOCAL 1000 and SEIU asfollowsandre-allegesand incorporates byreferenceparagraphs1 through 45ofthis Complaint.

47. On July 2, 2010Sherleswas sexuallyassaultedby Boyd, who it is believed had a knownhistory of sexual harassmenttowards women. AfterBoyd's July 2 ''assault,Sherlescomplained to theLOCAL1000 thatBoydhad sexuallyassaultedher, washarassingherand that she feltunsafearound him and did not want tohaveany contact withhim.

48. After making her complaint, Sherles was subjected to defaming remarks about hercharacter and veracity. She was berated by LOCAL 1000 counsel about comingforward,and not making this into a public matter.

49. Sherleswas subjected to retaliatory conduct after her complaints and the LOCALlOOO'sinvestigation of Boyd's conduct.

50. She was furtherharassedby MariaPattersonwho it is believed was acting under thedirect control ofUnionPresidentYvonne Walker, and as a result ofSherlesclaims ofbeing sexuallyharassed.

51. LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a Labor Organization underGovernmentCodeSection 12926(g).

omplaint


9/22

1 52. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has been2 damagedand has incurred attorneys' feesandcostsIn an amount to be established at3 trial, and inexcess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which are recoverable4 pursuantto GovemmentCodesection 12965, subdivision (b).5 53. Theactsof the Defendants were willful,wanton, malicious and oppressive, andjustify6 an award of exemplary and punitivedamagesin an amount to be established at trialand7 inexcessof thejurisdictionallimitsof this Court.8 54. Wherefore,SherlespraysforjudgmentagainstDefendants as morefullysetforthbelow.9 ThirdCause of Action10 Assault

^ ^ Against Boyd andL O C AL 1000; S E I UandD O E S1-100)12 55. Sherles allegesas againstBoyd, LOCAL 1000, and SEIU as follows and re-13 allegesand incorporates byreferenceparagraphs1through 54 of this Complaint.14 56. On July 2, 2010, Boydforcefullykissed Sherlesand grabbed her while she was on his15 hotel couch, with the intent of Intimidating her and causing her apprehension of16 immediate injury. At the time of this incident, Boyd was acting as anagentofLOCAL17 1000.18 57. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Boyd,Sherleshas suffered special19 damagesm an amount to be established attrialand inexcessof thejurisdictional limits20 ofthis Court.21 58. As a direct and proximateresuhof the actions of Boyd,Sherleshas suffered general22 damagesin an amount to be established at trialand inexcessof thejurisdictional limits23 ofthis Court.24 59. TheactsofBoydwere willful,wanton, malicious andoppressiveandjustifyan award of25 exemplary and punitivedamagesin an amount to be established attrialand inexcessof26 thejurisdictional limitso fthis Court.27 60. Wherefore,SherlespraysforjudgmentagainstDefendant as morefullyset forthbelow.28 Fourth Cause of Action

omplaint


10/22

BatteryAgainst SE I U ; L O C A L100,and Boydand D O E S1-100)

202122232425262728

61. Sherles alleges as against SEIU, Boyd, and LOCAL 1000 as followsand realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1through 59ofthisComplaint.

62. On July 2, 2010,Boyd forcefullykissed Sherles and grabbed herwhileshe was on hishotelcouch,withthe intent ofharmingoroffendingSherles.Atthetimeofthis incident,Boydwas acting as an agentof LOCAL1000.

63. As a direct and proximate result of the actions ofBoyd, Sherles has suffered specialdamagesin an amount to be established attrialand inexcessofthejurisdictional limitsofthisCourt.

64. As a direct and proximate result of the actions ofBoyd,Sherles has suffered generaldamagesin an amount to be established attrialand inexcessof thejurisdictional limitsofthisCourt.

55. TheactsofBoydwerewillful,wanton, maliciousand oppressiveand justifyan award ofexemplaryandpunitivedamagesin an amount to be established attrialand inexcessofthejurisdictional limitso fthisCourt.

56. Wherefore,Sherles praysforjudgmentagainstDefendantas morefullysetforthbelow.

67 . Sherles alleges as against all Defendants as follows and re-alleges andincorporates by reference paragraphs1 through 66 ofthisComplaint.

68 . TheactsofBoydand the LOCAL 1000 employees as described above wereunlawful,outrageous andmalicious. TheLOCAL 1000 employees were actingwithinthe scopeof employmentat thetimeof the acts, and such actions wereratifiedby the LOCAL1000.

69. Boyd,Patterson and the LOCAL 1000 employees and/oragentswrongfullyacted withthe intent tocauseSherles severeemotionaldistress, or so acted when theLOCAL1000

Complaint


11/22

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

employeesknew or shouldhaveknown that the conduct would causeor be likely tocausesevereemotionaldistress.

70. As a proximate result of the aforementioned outrageousactsofBoyd and the LOCAL1000employeesandratifiedby theLOCAL 1000,Sherleshas sufferedsevereemotionaldistresswhichhas manifested itself inphysical symptoms.

71. As a proximate result of the aforementioned outrageousactsofBoyd and the LOCAL1000employeesas ratified by the LOCAL 1000,Sherleshas suffered generaldamagesand specialdamages.

72. Theactsofthe Defendants werewillful ,wanton, malicious andoppressiveandjustifyanaward of exemplary and punitivedamagesin an amount to be established at trialand inexcessofthejurisdictional limitsofthis Court.

73. Wherefore,Sherlespraysfo rjudgmentagainstDefendants as morefullysetforthbelow.SixthCause of ActionNegligenceAgainst theAllDefendants)

74. Sherlesallegesasagainstall Defendatns that Boyd,Patterson,andLOCAL 1000and by extension SEIUhad a duty to protect her, a union member fromdangerousconditions and individuals on the LOCAL lOOO'spremisesand at the LOCALlOOO's functions,whichSherleswas obligated to attend.

75. Sherles allegesasagainstLOCAL 1000 thatLOCAL 1000breachedthis duty byfailingtoprevent Boyd frominteractingwithSherles.

76. SherlesallegesasagainstLOCAL 1000 thatLOCAL 1000breachedthis duty byfailingtopreventPattersonfrominteractingwithSherles.

77. Sherles allegesthat as a result ofLOCAL lOOO's breach thatSherleswasdamagedinamount to be established attrialand Inexcessof thejurisdictional limitsof this Court.

78. Sherles allegesas toBoyd that Boydhad a duty to act as areasonableperson withsound

Complaint


12/22

1 mindwithrespect to hisInteractionswithSherles.2 79. Sherles alleges thatBoydbreachedthisdutyandfailedto act as a reasonable person of3 soundmind insending Sherlessexuallyexplicittextmessages.4 80. Sherles alleges thatBoydbreachedthis dutyandfailedto act as a reasonable person of5 soundmind in forciblykissingSherles' andgrabbingher.6 81. Sherles alleges as a result ofBoyd'sbreach(es), Sherles was damaged in amount to be7 established attrialandinexcessof the jurisdictional limitsofthisCourt.8 82. Sherles alleges as to Patterson that Patterson had adutyto act as a reasonable personwith9 soundmind withrespect to hisinteractionswithSherles.

10 83. Sherles alleges that Patterson breachedthisdutyandfailedto act as a reasonable person11 withrespect to thehostileand absusivecommentsshe made to Sherles.12 84. Sherles alleges as a result of Patterson's breach(es), Sherles was damaged in amount to13 be established attrialandinexcessof the jurisdictional limitso fthisCourt.14 85. Wherefore,Sherles praysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsas morefullysetforthbelow.15

SeventhCauseofAction16 NegligenceInflictionofEmotionalDistress^ ^ AgainstAllDefendants)18 86. Sherles alleges as toLOCAL1000,SEIU,Patterson, andBoydthat as a resulto f19 the Negligenceidentified in the Seventh Cause of Action that shesuffered20 significantemotionaldistressInamountto be established attrialandinexcessof21 thejurisdictional limitsofthis Court.22 87. Wherefore,Sherles praysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsas morefullysetforth23 below.2425 EighthCauseofActionViolationofCaliforniaLaborCode1102.526 AgainsttheL O C A L 1000;SE IU and D O E S1-100)

88. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 andSEIUasfollowsand re-alleges and28

Complaint


13/22

Actswiththeintenttocauseaharmfuloroffensivecontactwithan intimatepartofanother, and a sexuallyoffensivecontactwiththat persondirectlyor

^ incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 87ofthisComplaint.2 89. Sherles disclosed to her employer. The State ofCalifornia,thatBoydhad sexually3 assaulted and battered her,whichconstitutes a disclosure to a law enforcement4 agency underCaliforniaLaborCode1102.5 e)5 90. The content of her report dealtwithconduct,whichmay haveviolated Civ. Code6-J 1708.5(a); Civ. Code 51; Civ. Code 52.4;Pen. Code 240;and Pen. Code8 242,whichstatesinrelevant part:^ a. Apersoncommitsa sexual battery whodoesanyof the following: (1)

101112J3 indirectlyresults.... CivCode1708.514 b. A l lpersonswithin the jurisdiction ofthisstateare free and equal, and no

matter what their sex, race,color,religion,ancestry, nationalorigin,disability,16

medicalcondition, maritalstatus, or sexualorientationareentitledto thefull17 and equal accommodations, advantages,facilities,privileges,or services in al1829 business establishments ofeverykindwhatsoever. CivCode 5120 c. Any person who has been subjected to genderviolencemaybringacivil21

actionfordamagesagainst any responsibleparty.Theplaintiffmay seek22 actual damages, compensatory damages,punitivedamages,injunctive relief,232^ anycombinationofthose,or any other appropriaterelief Aprevailing25 plaintiffmay also be awarded attorney'sfeesand costs Civ Code52.426 d. Anassault is anunlawfijlattempt, coupledwitha present ability,tocommita27

violent injuryon the persono fanother. Penal Code2402813

Complaint


14/22

e. A battery is anywillfulandunlawfuluse offorceor violence upon the2 person ofanother. Penal Code2423 91. Subsequentto this reporting, theLOCAL1000 and itsagentsbeganto retaliate4

againstSherles,by dispai'aging hercharacter,and makingthreatsregarding herabilitytotakewhat hadhappenedpublic,and generally making itdifficulttoperform her elected duties.

8 92. ThisCaused Sherlesdamagesin an amount to be shown according to proof.^ 93. TheLOCALlOOO's conduct was the result ofPlaintiffsdisclosuresto a

10 governingagency. This is retaliationagainstpublicpolicyand inviolationof11CalifomlaStatutory law.

1222 94. Wherefore,SherlespraysforjudgmentagainstDefendants as morefullysetforth14 below.1516 Ninth Cause of ActionViolation ofCivilCode 51 -U N R U H17 Against the Boyd and L O C AL 1000; S E I U ;andD O E S1-100)

95. Sherles allegesasagainstLOCAL 1000; SEIU and Boyd asfollowsandre-allegesand incorporates byreferenceparagraphs 1through 94ofthisComplaint.

96. Sherles,as a female is a protected individualunderthe UNRUHact in that she is

1819202122 entitled not to beharassedand/ordiscriminatedagainstbasedon her sex23 97. Boyd did in fact discriminate andharassSherles as a result of her sex and her24

complaints about being sexually assaulted and battered by Boyd. At all times25

relevant to this harassment/discrimination basedon her sex Boyd was acting as an26 agentof theLOCAL1000.28

Complaint


15/22

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

98. ThisCaused Sherlesdamagesin an amount to be shovm according toproof99. Wherefore,SherlespraysforjudgmentagainstDefendants as more fullyset forth

below.

TenthCause of ActionViolation ofCivilCode 52 and52 4Against the Boyd andL O C AL 1000; S E I UandD O E S1-100)100. Sherles allegesasagainstBoydand LOCAL 1000 andSEIUasfollowsand re

allegesand incorporates byreferenceparagraphs1through 99ofthis Complaint.101. Boyd's conduct in assaulting and batteringSherlesaregenderviolence as definedunder

California Civil Code 52.4. At all times relevant to this harassment/discriminationbasedon her sexBoydwas acting as anagentof theLOCAL1000.

102. ThisCaused Sherlesdamagesin an amount to be shown according toproof103. Theactsof the Defendants were willful,wanton, malicious andoppressiveandjustifyan

award of exemplary and punitivedamagesin an amount to be established attrialand inexcessof thejurisdictional limitsof this Court.

104. Wherefore,SherlespraysforjudgmentagainstDefendants as morefullysetforthbelow.

EleventhCause of ActionViolationofCivilCode1708 5Against the Boyd andL O C AL 1000; S E I UandD O E S1-100)105. SherlesallegesasagainstBoyd,LOCAL1000, andSEIUasfollowsandre-alleges

and incorporates byreferenceparagraphs 1through 104ofthis Complaint.106. Boyd intended tocauseharmful and offensive contact toSherles'body when he

attempted to kiss her and grab her. At all times relevant to thisharassment/discrimination basedon her sexBoydwas acting as anagentof the

15omplaint


16/22

345678911112131415161718192212223

2425262728

LOCAL1000.107. Harmfulandoffensivecontact did in fact occur whenBoydtouched and kissed Sherles'

body.108. Wherefore,Sherles praysforjudgmentagainst Defendants as morefullysetforthbelow

Twelfth CauseofActionNegligence Retention and Supei isionAgainsttheL O C AL 1000;SE IU and D O E S1-100)109. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 andSEIUthatLOCAL 1000 andSEIU

had adutyto protect her, aunionmemberfromUnionemployees and/oragentstheykneworshouldhaveknownposedathreat tounionmembers,

n o . Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 that LOCAL 1000 breached this duty bymaintainingBoyd'semploymentand/or Patterson'semploymentand/orstatusas aUnionmember with authority, thereby allowing Boyd to sexually assault, batter, andharassPlaintiff,and for Patterson to have the interactions with Plaintiff she didincludingtreatingShereleswithaggression.

111. Sherles alleges that as a result ofLOCAL lOOO's breach that Sherles was damaged inamountto be established attrialandinexcessof thejurisdictional limitso fthisCourt.

112. Wherefore,Sherles praysforjudgmentagainst Defendants as morefullysetforthbelow.ThirteenthCauseofActionViolationofCivilCode 52.1AgainstL O C AL 1000;SE IU and D O E S1-100)

113. Sherles alleges as against LOCAL 1000 andSEIUasfollowsand re-alleges andincorporates by reference paragraphs 1through 113ofthis Complaint.

114. LOCAL lOOO'sconduct inintimidatingSherles and threatening Sherles not to gopublicwithherclaimof sexual harassment constitutes coercion underCivilCode

Complaint


17/22

1

11

2021

52.1 as this conductinfringeduponSherles'firstamendment righttopetition,as2 well as complaint about sexual harassment protected by California Law and

constitution.115. ThisCaused Sherlesdamagesin an amount to be shown according toproof116. Theactsof the Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and

3456y justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be8 established attrialand inexcessof thejurisdictional limitso fthis Court.^ 117. Wherefore,Sherlesprays forjudgment against Defendants as more fullyset forth

10below.

Fourteenth Cause of Action12 Loss ofConsortiumAgainstAl lDefendants)

13 118. Robyn Sherles allegesas against all Defendants as followsand re-allegesandincorporates by referenceparagraphs1through 117 ofthisComplaint.

119. RobynSherlesis RDP toPlaintiffMechelleSherles.141516

120. The Incidents as describedabovehavecausedharm to the marital relationship of18 MechelleSherlesand RobynSherles. And Thus, RobynSherles,as a direct result

ofthe Defendants, andeachof their conduct, hasbeendamaged in an amount tobe shown according to proof.

FifteenthCauseof Action22 Sexual Orientation Harassment in Violation of Government Code section12940,subdivision j)23 AgainstL O C AL 1000,S E I U MariaPatterson, andDoes1-100)2425 121. Sherles allegesas against Local 1000,SEIU, and Patterson as followsand re26 alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 120 of this27 Complaint28 122. Govemment Code section 12940, subdivision( j ) ( l ) , makesit imlawfulfor an employer

Complaint


18/22

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

orany other person ...becauseof sexual orientation ... toharassan employee....Furthermore, section 12904,subdivision (}){ \) ,holds an employer responsible for theactsof nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees ... where theemployer,or itsagentsor supervisors, knows or should haveknownof the conduct andfailsto take immediate and appropriatecorrectiveaction.

123. Patterson maintained an electedpositionwhileacting in her role as an agent ofLocal1000,and to the extent she was not a manager, she was acting as a direct agent ofPresidentYvonne Walker.

124. It is stated oninformationandbeliefthatLOCAL1000 knew that Patterson was a threattoSherles.

125. LOCAL 1000 is subject to liability for FEHA as a Labor Organization underGovernmentCode Section 12926(g).

126. Patterson engaged inthe actions setforthinthisComplaint,includingmakinginappropriateandharassing commentstoSherleswhileinprivateandinthe companyofothers.

127. When Sherles complained to theLOCAL 1000 about Patterson's harassment, theLOCAL1000 retaliated against herformakingthecomplaints.

128. Patterson's harassment was sosevereand pervasive as toaffectthe terms andconditionsofSherles' representation as abargainingrepresentativeforher members.

129. The LOCAL 1000 engaged in the actions set forthin this Complaint,includinghavingknowledge that Patterson was engaging in harassing conduct, and failing to takeappropriate andpromptremedialaction.

130. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Sherles has beendamaged and has Incurred attomeys'feesandcostsIn an amount to be established attrial, and inexcessof the jurisdictional limitsof this Court,which are recoverablepursuant toGovemmentCode section 12965,subdivision(b).

131. The acts of Patterson and the LOCAL 1000 were willful , wanton, malicious andoppressive andjustifyan award ofexemplaryandpunitivedamagesin an amount to beestablished attrialandinexcessofthejurisdictional limitso fthisCourt.

Complaint


19/22

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

132. Wherefore,Sherlespraysforjudgmentagainst Defendantsas morefullysetforthbelow.Prayer

As to theFirstCause of Action - Sexual Harassment:1. For reasonable attomeys' fees pursuant to Govemnient Code section 12965,

subdivision (b);2. Forgeneraland specialdamagesaccording to proof;3. Forpunitivedamages;4. Forcostsof suit herein incurred; and5. Forsuchotherand furtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

Asto the Second Cause of Action - Retaliation:Forreasonableattorneys' feespursuantto Govemment Codesection 12965, subdivision

(b);2. Forgeneraland specialdamagesaccording to proof;3. Forpunitivedamages;4. Forcostsof suit hereinincuiTcd;and5. Forsuchotherand furtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

As to theThirdCause of Action - Assault:1. Forgeneraland specialdamagesaccording to proof;2. For punitivedamages;3. Forcostsof suit herein incurred; and4. Forsuchotherandfiulher reliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

As to theFourthCause of Action - Battery:1. Forgeneraland specialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forpunitivedamages;3. Forcostsof suit herein incurred; and4. Forsuchother and furtherreliefas the courtdeemsproper.

As to theFifthCause of Action - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

Complaint


20/22

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forpunitivedamages;3. Forcostsofsuitherein Incurred;and4. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

Asto theSixth CauseofAction- Negligence:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forcostsof suit herein Incurred;and3. Forsuchother and furtherreliefas the courtdeemsproper.

Asto theSeventh CauseofAction- NegligentInflictionofEmotional Distress:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forcostsof suit herein incurred;and3. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

Asto theEighth CauseofAction-Violation ofLabor Code 1102.5:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. For punitivedamages;3. Forcostsofsuitherein incurred;4. For Attomey'sFees;and5. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper;for

Asto theNinth CauseofAction-ViolationofCa l Civil51-U NRAH:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forpunitivedamages;3. Forcostsof suit herem incurred;4. For Attomey'sFees;and5. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper;for

Asto theTenth CauseofAction-ViolationofCa l Civil52 and5 2.4:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forpunitivedamages;3. Forcostsof suit herein Incurred;

Complaint


21/22

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

4. For Attomey'sFees;and5. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

Asto theEleventh CauseofAction-ViolationofCal Civil 1 708.5:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. For punitivedamages;3. Forcostsof suit herein incurred;4. Forsuchother andfurtherreliefas the courtdeemsproper.

Asto theTwelfth Cause ofAction-NegligentRetention and Supervision:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forpunitivedamages;3. Forcostsofsuitherein incurred;.4. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

Astothe Thirteenth Cause ofAction-Violation ofCivilCode5 2.1:1. Forgeneralandspecialdamagesaccording to proof;2. Forpunitivedamages;3. Forcostsof suit herein incurred;4. For Attomey'sFees;and5. Forsuchotherandfiirther reliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

Astothe Fourteenth CauseofAction-Lossof Consortium:1. Forgeneraland specialdamagesaccording to proof;2. For punitivedamages;3. Forcostsof suit herein incurred;4. and5. Forsuchotherandfurtherreliefasthe courtdeemsproper.

Asto theFifteenth CauseofAction- Sexual Orientation Harassment:1. For reasonable attomeys' fees pursuant to Govemment Code section 12965,

subdivision (b);2. Forgeneraland specialdamagesaccording to proof;

2

Complaint


22/22

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

3. Forpunitivedamages;4. Forcostsof suit herein Incurred; and5. For such other and furtherreliefas the courtdeemsproper.

Dated: November^ t 2011. Respectfully submitted,CHOUDHARYLAWOFFICE

By: Joel Rapaport (No.248847)Attorneyfor PlaintiffMechelleSherlesandRobynShereles

Documents

Sherles v SEIU Local 1000 Original Complaint